Please ignore this mail, not intended to be sent. Extra -1 on the
command line also picked the top patch.
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 08:20:15PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> From: Chris Mason
>
> Dave Jones hit a WARN_ON(nr < 0) in btrfs_wait_ordered_roots() with
> v4.12-rc6. This was because commi
From: Chris Mason
Dave Jones hit a WARN_ON(nr < 0) in btrfs_wait_ordered_roots() with
v4.12-rc6. This was because commit 70e7af244 made it possible for
calc_reclaim_items_nr() to return a negative number. It's not really a
bug in that commit, it just didn't go far enough down the stack to find
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 05:29:56PM +0200, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> On 06/23/17 16:32, Chris Mason wrote:
> [..]
> > -static inline int calc_reclaim_items_nr(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> > +static inline u64 calc_reclaim_items_nr(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> >
On 06/23/2017 11:29 AM, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
On 06/23/17 16:32, Chris Mason wrote:
[..]
-static inline int calc_reclaim_items_nr(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
+static inline u64 calc_reclaim_items_nr(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
u64 to_reclaim)
{
On 06/23/17 16:32, Chris Mason wrote:
[..]
> -static inline int calc_reclaim_items_nr(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> +static inline u64 calc_reclaim_items_nr(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> u64 to_reclaim)
> {
> u64 bytes;
> - int nr;
> + u64
Dave Jones hit a WARN_ON(nr < 0) in btrfs_wait_ordered_roots() with
v4.12-rc6. This was because commit 70e7af244 made it possible for
calc_reclaim_items_nr() to return a negative number. It's not really a
bug in that commit, it just didn't go far enough down the stack to find
all the possible 64-